Chamber and committees

PE2081, on making chronic kidney disease a key clinical priority, which was lodged by Professor Jeremy Hughes, on behalf of Kidney Research UK in Scotland, calls on us to do exactly what it says on the tin, which is to urge the Scottish Government to make chronic kidney disease a key clinical priority.

The SPICe briefing notes that chronic kidney disease is a term that can be used to cover a range of kidney impairments, from a small loss of kidney performance with no symptoms to a life-threatening condition that requires regular dialysis or a kidney transplant.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that the relevant cabinet secretary and minister have previously corresponded with the petitioner to advise that Scottish Government does not intend to increase the number of health strategies for individual conditions at this time. It is noted that the Government’s approach to clinical conditions policy is kept under regular review. The Government response also notes work to support people with kidney disease, including the launch of a national policy on the reimbursement of electricity costs for home dialysis for patients.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, who is concerned that the Scottish Government’s criteria for choosing what will and will not be designated a clinical priority remains unclear. The petitioner poses two specific questions: why is chronic kidney disease not already a clinical priority, and why has the Scottish Government taken the decision not to increase the number of health strategies for individual conditions or to assign the status of clinical priority, and the civil service support that goes with it, to any additional conditions. The petitioner also highlights the potential benefits to patients and the clinical community where a condition affecting them has been designated a clinical priority: for example, bringing clarity on who within the Scottish Government has day-to-day responsibility for developing condition-specific strategies and action plans.

Do any members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Under our second item, we will continue consideration of petitions that we have considered previously. PE1919, which was lodged by Ted Gourley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast-release caffeine gum—a high-caffeine product—for performance enhancement to under-18s due to the risk of serious harm. We previously considered the petition on 20 September 2023, at which point we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.

We have received a response confirming that the independent analysis of the Government’s consultation on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people has been published and that the responses to the consultation

“did not raise any issues associated with fast release caffeine gum”,

although the consultation was not focused specifically on that area. The response also confirms that the Government

“will not be pursuing research on fast release caffeine products”

at this time—in essence, for financial reasons—but that the Government

“will keep this under review for future years.”

We have also received two written submissions from the petitioner, who suggests that labelling for high-strength caffeine gum should include a health warning about potential risks,

“particularly when taking it immediately before or during intense physical exercise”.

The petitioner also believes that the promotion of caffeine gum at public events might be in breach of health and safety regulations. It might be worth noting that workplace health and safety regulation is reserved and that much of the health and safety legislation derives from the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which focuses primarily on the safety of employees in a workplace.

Colleagues, we were quite struck by the evidence that we heard last September about there being something of a risk here. The Government has not sought to validate that argument and does not feel that it is in a position to do so at the moment. I am reluctant to close the petition at this stage, because I am not yet satisfied that there is no issue of major concern—I do not know yet.

If members have no suggestions for what we might do, I am minded to ask the clerks to give the matter some thought and to come back to us with some suggestions about where we might go. I am not sure how far we can go, but we could find out a little bit more, because I would not want us to have moved on quite so quickly if the issue became a more obvious health problem.

Do members agree with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I have been to Venice on a number of occasions, but that was under my own steam and not for the arts and culture festival.

In all seriousness, I read recently that the daily volume of visitors to Venice is now almost intolerable given the ability of the infrastructure to cope. I certainly know that, if you are staying in Venice, you really have to be up at 5 o’clock in the morning to have a wander around. Otherwise, you cannot move. The city is definitely under a lot of pressure. Nonetheless, it has a series of famous and celebrated arts festivals through the year, and Scotland’s participation in those is to be valued.

Our next petition is PE1964, which was lodged by Accountability Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set up an independent review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in order to investigate complaints made against the SPSO, to assess the quality of its work and decisions, and to establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.

We have considered the petition before; colleagues may remember the submissions. The petitioner has brought to our attention the fact that the ombudsman stated her support for a review of the legislation governing the SPSO during the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s scrutiny of the SPSO’s annual report. Her view is that the current legislation is not

“as adaptable as it should be, for the different ways of delivering services and making complaints.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 5 December 2023; c 16.]

It is worth noting that while the ombudsman has stated her support for a review of the legislation, the petitioner is also calling for an investigation into complaints made against the SPSO and an assessment of the quality of its work. From different starting positions, the ombudsman and the petitioner are seeking such a review.

We are aware, and it is important to note, that the SPSO’s functions are independent of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—which met the ombudsman recently—ministers and MSPs to ensure that there is no interference in the decisions that are made.

We are in the slightly unusual position that there has never been a review of the ombudsman. In previous evidence, there was an expectation that a review would take place at some point of the way in which the arrangements are structured. The Government seems reluctant to undertake the review that the petitioner would like, but the ombudsman herself is quite open to the idea that a review should take place.

I wonder whether Mr Torrance has a burning suggestion for us.

I am happy to say to the petitioner that we will not bury the petition but will make efforts to keep it alive. We will wait to hear what the responses to our inquiries are.

The First Minister and the then cabinet secretary said that, first, there are issues in identifying who an asylum seeker is, because it is not like being a pensioner or being under 21, as those groups are self-defined. How do we define an asylum seeker?

The second issue is that the Government is concerned about the fact that the scheme would have to operate in such a way that it did not contravene the Home Office guidelines on what constitutes earnings or benefits. I do not think that asylum seekers are entitled to receive benefits, so being in receipt of free travel could potentially alter their status. My understanding was that there was some detail to be worked out in relation to how what was proposed would come about.

However, after six months, it is perfectly in order for us to try to establish—as Mr Sweeney suggests—what on earth is going on, because we are well into the financial year and the scheme is not helping anyone to travel anywhere. As Mr Sweeney says, there is then the contingent risk that the money will end up being used to finance the carrying out of a whole lot of research rather than to put people on buses, which is what the intention is.

Do colleagues have any suggestions that we might add to Mr Ewing’s?

We have a series of suggestions on how we should proceed. Are members content that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I am quite happy that we write to the Government on that basis and that, thereafter, we close the petition. Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner and the petitioner’s advocate for raising this important matter with us. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.

That brings us to the end of the public session of this morning’s meeting. We will next meet on Wednesday 29 May, when we will be taking evidence from Nicola Sturgeon MSP on our inquiry into the A9 dualling project in addition to the consideration of petitions.

We now move into private session.